Pages

Myths

Rebutting Republican Myths

Monarchies are un-democratic!
Not true. Actually, most monarchies in the world today are more democratic than most republics in the world. Further, in most republics (even the United States) the President is not directly elected by the people anyway. However, being democratic is not necessarily a good thing. Benevolent leaders and bloodthirsty dictators have both come to power through democracy.

Monarchies are too expensive!
Not true, not by a long shot. Some monarchs (such as the Prince of Liechtenstein) cost the public nothing at all. In the United Kingdom, the money the Queen grants the government from the Crown Estates is considerably more than the allowance she receives from the Civil List, so Britain effectively makes money off the monarchy. Republics often spend more on their presidents, past presidents and first families than monarchies do on their royal houses. Many countries (like Australia, Jamaica or Canada) share a monarch and pay nothing and monarchies do not have the constant, massive expense of elections and political campaigns for the top job.

Hereditary monarchy just isn’t fair!
Why not? How can any system for determining national leadership be absolutely fair? It hardly seems fair that one person should receive the top job simply because he or she is more popular. Surely the correct criteria should be how qualified a person is rather than if they are good at making speeches, more photogenic or being more gifted at graft and deceit. In a monarchy the top job goes to someone trained from birth to fill that role. In a republic, even under the best circumstances, an elected president will take half their term learning to do the job and the other half campaigning to retain it; hardly a model of efficiency. Hereditary succession seems much more “fair” than granting power to those able to swindle enough money and promise enough favors to the powerful to obtain the highest office in the land.

Monarchies are dangerous! What if the monarch is incompetent?
The same question could be asked about republican leaders. However, rest assured, monarchs who are not capable of fulfilling their duties can be replaced and have been throughout history. Take two of the oldest and most stable monarchies; in Great Britain, when King George III became incapacitated the Prince of Wales was made regent and exercised his duties for him. Similarly, in Japan, when the Taisho Emperor was no longer able to fulfill his duties, the Crown Prince took over those duties for him as regent. On the other hand, even in the most successful republic in the world, the United States, only two presidents have ever been impeached and neither one was actually removed from office.

Monarchy is an archaic throwback! It’s simply out of date!
Certainly monarchy is an ancient institution as it developed naturally from the dawn of time and the growth of human civilizations. However, democracy and republicanism is just as archaic. The Greek city-states of ancient times tried direct democracy and found it of very limited value, lasting only so long as people found out they could vote themselves the property of others. Republicanism was tried on a large-scale by the ancient Romans and yet they too found that it caused too many divisions, factions and civil wars before they decided a monarchy was preferable. The oldest republic in the world today was founded in 301 AD. How out of date is that?

What about cruel monarchs like Nero or Attila the Hun? Surely no benefits could be worth risking leaders like that!
Actually, far more people have been butchered in wars or massacred by those in power since the start of the revolutionary period than in all history previously. Nero or Attila the Hun were unsavory characters but nowhere near as bad as republican monsters like Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong or Pol Pot. It has only been in the post-revolutionary era of mass politics and political ideologies that governments have taken to killing their own people in huge numbers. Nero was cruel to his own family and later persecuted Christians who were still a tiny minority and Attila the Hun, as ruthless as he was toward his enemies, ruled his own people well from what we know and with justice. No monarch ever wiped out as many of their own people as the communist dictators of the Twentieth Century, all of whom did so in the name of “the people” and “fairness”.

Royals are too out of touch. They have no idea how regular people live.
Some people believe this, but it simply isn’t true. Queen Elizabeth II was a mechanic and truck driver during World War II, the King of Thailand is a renowned jazz musician and composer, Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has painted illustrations for several books, including the Danish edition of “The Lord of the Rings”. The Emperor of Japan grows his own rice, the King of Cambodia was a practically anonymous dance instructor before coming to the throne and many royal heirs take ordinary jobs, often in obscure places where they are unknown, after finishing school. Despite what people think, royal life is not all champagne and caviar. Compare this to many presidents who have often never worked outside the public sector in their entire lives, never served in the military (as most royals do) or ever known any other life besides making speeches and casting votes.

At best, monarchs are unnecessary. A president could do just as good a job.
Not true at all. Some republics have ceremonial presidents that are supposed to be non-political but they still invariably have a political background and are beholden to the party that appoints them. A monarch, on the other hand, is above all political divisions and has a blood connection to the history of the country, its traditions and most deeply held beliefs. No politician could ever represent a people in the way a monarch can whose family history has been the history of the country itself.

Monarchies must be bad or else there would be more of them!
That argument could only begin to make sense if most monarchies had fallen because of a conscious decision by the whole people to see them end. This has certainly not been the case. Most monarchies have fallen because of brute force exerted by a powerful, motivated minority or because their country was defeated in war and their state collapsed. How about looking at how people live? The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development annually puts out a list of the best countries to live in based on a variety of factors and monarchies invariably outrank republics by far. Last year, 2012, is a typical case with 8 out of the top 10 best countries to live in being monarchies; the only republics to make the top 10 were the United States and Switzerland. If republics are so great, shouldn’t their people be living better lives than those in monarchies?

Monarchs are so set apart, they cannot represent ordinary people.
Actually, that is precisely why they can represent everyone in a way no politician ever could. President Hollande of France is an agnostic socialist, so how can he truly represent those French who are Catholic or capitalists? President Napolitano of Italy was a long-time communist, which is certainly not representative of most Italians. President Obama of the US, a liberal from Hawaii, cannot have much in common with a conservative from South Carolina. Yet, a monarch, because they are set apart, can represent everyone because they are not from any particular group.

Republics bring progress, monarchies only oppressed.
Historical fact says otherwise. Time and time again history has shown that the end of monarchy makes things worse for a country, not better. In France it resulted in the “Reign of Terror” that saw tens of thousands of people get their heads chopped off. In Russia, the loss of the monarchy allowed the Bolsheviks to take power who then created the Soviet Union which spread oppression around the world and murdered millions of people. In China the result was a chaotic period of warlord rule followed by the bloodiest civil war in human history and then a communist dictatorship that took the lives of 60 million people. The end of monarchy in Germany and Austria resulted in divided republics that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power, devastate the continent and butcher 9 million people. The fall of the Shah of Iran allowed a radical theocracy to take power that has spread terrorism around the world and brutally oppressed its own people. These are only a few of the examples that could be cited and the facts are inarguable.

Dear Old Boy, with all due respect, It does appear you enjoy the truth and factual nature of which is history! And to be an honorable man, destroyer of myth and lies. And good at that, I see. Well, here is more fodder for your cannon. It is high time for someone to appear on the field at the head of a great army of fallen soldiers cheated of their honor and the recognition bestowed upon heroes. And Heroes,they be. The "REAL", the "TRUE" heroes of---the Battle of the ALAMO! ---the "NEW ORLEANS GREYS". You, my friend, is that "someone". The time and place, is here and now. The stars are in your favor. Destiny awaits you. Most sincerely and with all moral support, Cliff Guidry

I must be missing a connection here but let me assure you I have the utmost respect and admiration for the New Orleans Greys. Their flag is hanging in my office and somewhere around here are some pictures of a much younger me in the Greys uniform volunteering at an Alamo tour. A cousin of mine has even seen their original flag. They were some of the best.

You nailed it. Those republicans need to stop living in la la land. MM, have you checked out http://www.reddit.com/r/monarchism? It's a very informative forum dedicated to the principals of monarchy. We'd love for you to visit us and maybe even host a Q&A session. Please reply. Thank You. Regards, Cameron Parker.

If the USA had a King, I always thought it would be a descendant of Robert E. Lee. Why? If George Washington became king more than likely he would pass it to his step grandson George Washington Parke Custis, who he adopted. George Washington Parke Custis has royal blood and is related to the Calvert family. His only daughter, Mary Anna Custis married Robert E. Lee. She inherited George Washington's property in what is now Washington DC and his personal items that you can see in Lexington, Virginia where the Lee family is buried. The Lee properties were once all around where DC is now until the Civil War when it was taken away and turned into Arlington Cemetery. Like my theory??

Yeah. Come to think of it, though, maybe it would be better for the United States to have an emperor, with fifty kings for each state. Or perhaps fewer (thirteen?) since it might get messy with that many kings. This whole idea was largely to restore the Kingdom of Hawaii and because I rather like the flag of the pre-War United States from the Fallout universe. Thirteen kings for the small stars and the big star for the emperor.http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110201025310/fallout/images/7/7c/USA_Flag_Pre-War.png

I always envisioned it as a confederation of 50 Kingdoms, Duchies, and possibly Earldoms under a single Emperor, who would be one of the Kings, becoming Emperor either hereditarily or through an elective system by the Kings or all 50 states' rulers.

Even though you wish for America to become a monarchy, it would never happen, it's practically impossible. The people would oppose it, and let's not forget, who would even rule over this new country. The republican and democratic parties would do everything in their power to avoid it, unless someone bribed them with large amounts of money, or promised positions of power. It's likely that if a monarchist revolution,(Only possible way I can see it happen) the states would either A. band together and overthrow the new monarchist regime, or B. start in-fighting, desperate to "Return America to It's former glory." or fighting to become new countries of their own. While yes, it does seem that there are many more pros of monarchies than republics, democracies, ect. The truth is, your not thinking about the people, people would be scared, the army, navy, air force, would be in mass confusion, not knowing whether to fight for the states or the new regime. It would be possible that since, this new country might be invaded by Russia/China, to take advantage of our weakness during this crucial time. It's possible mass riots would take place, and if a loyalist policeman to this new crown did something wrong, media outlets would jump at the chances, spreading stories about the new regime was only bringing misery and death to the former U.S. ~From, A 1st Time Visitor To This Site.

I'm in disagreement over the final point of Iran, only partially. I don't think they have the best form of government, but I also think that much of what is said against it is only a ploy for war profiteering.

Then I doubt your honesty as to agreeing with anything else. What *I* have said about the IRI they do not deny. The paramount point is that they are an illegitimate regime of usurpers and not the sort that any sort of monarchist whatever can possibly defend. Given that, you had best move along and forget you ever found this corner of the internet as it is definitely not for you.

MM, I want to tell you I thoroughly enjoy this blog, and have for some time. I could haggle with you over some recent history but certainly never on the principle issue.

I first came across this blog a few years ago but only now have had the time to get into it. If you enjoy history and politics I look forward to some flings. Once we're both comfortable with it, of course.

I like your points on Monarchy but I have a question regarding Constitutional Monarchy, do you think a Monarchy with a congressional legislative system would work better than a parliamentary system in the sense that the monarch would retain more power? I think a congressional system works better in the sense that their is no legislatively appointed prime minister and unlike a parlmentary system the executive is not responsible to the legislature. Thank you for your time and have a good day.

It would depend on the circumstances of the country in question. No formula will work well for everyone because we are all so different. One of the benefits of monarchy is that it grows up naturally to fit the particular customs, history and needs of each country.

Well thought out, I find your points well made especially regarding the common fallacies of egalitarianism and Republicanism such as the 'unfairness' accusation. I am interested in ideologies(study of ideas) in general and I am curious where you would score on this quiz which measures ideologies for the most part accurately. It measures ideology on three dimensions such as Liberty, Equality, and Stability. Reactionaries according to quiz score as high on Liberty and Stability with Equality being least preference while Conservatives score high on Stability. I scored as a Conservative on the quiz and I tend to favor the Chinese system of Monarchy. Anyway, here is the quiz: http://www.helloquizzy.com/tests/the-political-objectives-test

Thanks for the interesting site and postings. Good to meet a fellow reactionary. What is your stance on the rights of various monarchs in regards to hunting, fishing whaling? Not a trick question. I am in favor of such as it has been the traditional right of all monarchs and rulers to take the wild game. Traditionally harvesting game also fosters a more independent and confident monarch for example Queen Elizabeth II who was an avid hunter.

Exellent text . In Brazil we have the idea of what is a Parliamentary Monarchy and a republic. The Imperial period was an era of peace , respect to the law, low corruption , press freedom , democracy and progress. The republic was established by a coup d'Etat involving part of the army and land owners discontents with the abolition of slavery and particularly with the intent of Emperor Dom Pedro II and heiress princess Izabel to give to the ex-slaves lands to plant and money. The republic promised in 1889 a referendum to the people to decide about the political regime . This referendum was made more than 100 years after de coup, with the Imperial family forbidden to express their opinion, by the Supreme Court. The Monarchist moviment was repressed from 1889 until 1988. Finally I hope that from the ashes of this decadent and corrupt republic The Brazilian Empire will rise again !

I finally find someone with common sense who defends monarchy. PD: I saw in one of the comments above a French man saying "A bas la république!" (Dowm with the republic!) to that, I reply...Viva la Contre-Révolution!

So what if the monarchy isn't legitimate? I agree that the monarchy was at one time the legitimate government. Maybe even better than what we have today? The problem is that ever since the German duchies took over the British Empire, if not sooner, the monarchies were extremely corrupted and illegitimate. It could have been King Henry killing his wives, or Queen Elizabeth making a practitioner of the occult her advisor? Things haven't been what they seem for a long time. The saving grace in the US is that the founding fathers had first hand experience and understood that corruption very well. They established a constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us from that corruption. I find anyone who worships at the altar of either American political party ridiculously foolish, but longing for a monarchy is like trying to be a virgin again. The Virgin Queen was a lie. Humanity restoring a monarchy would be a lie. We need to establish Christ as King again because the culture of death once known as IG Farben is alive and well, and they always had a plan to enslave and depopulate the world under a new world order. Not even kidding, the Pharma Conglomerate is establishing itself and the real criminals NEVER go to jail.

You really make no sense. You start out by saying legitimacy doesn't matter and then go on to say that the post-Stuart British monarchy was "corrupted and illegitimate". Further, the monarchies, in fact or in name, did establish Christ as King yet, according to you, they were still corrupted. So why should we bother? Especially when you say that the American Bill of Rights prevents corruption but only to then go on to bemoan modern day corruption. You're trying to have it both ways and it makes no sense at all.

Christ is King of kings, not President of presidents, so obviously it was intended from the beginning that Christ have kings under him and if we are to be Christ-like, to be "Christian", we are to be like Christ and if Christ exercises authority as a monarch, surely monarchy is the preferred system rather than a republic which is based on the will of the majority which, I remind you, the Bible repeatedly says does what is evil and easy rather than was is righteous and difficult which only a few will do.